The social nature of censorship is determined by the fact that the nature of social relations and the conditions for the interaction of various public institutions, social strata, groups and individuals in society largely depend on the quality and volume of information circulating in society, which is interested in strengthening the stability of its existence and develops to achieve this goal. special means. Censorship, which directly regulates information flows, serves as one of the most important mechanisms for protecting society from entropy and protecting its political and moral foundations. It is able to prevent the spread of anomie in society, prevent excesses of extremism, chauvinism, racism, nationalism, anti-Semitism and other negative phenomena.

However, the role of censorship as a guarantor of a given vector social development is ambiguous. There comes a time when society begins to show the need to make changes to previously familiar relationships, which is possible only if a strong innovative impulse arrives. In this case, censorship can be a serious obstacle to these changes, if it "in its own way" interprets the real and imaginary novelty. Consequently, according to its decisions, one can judge the degree of readiness of the controlling authority, subordinate to the managerial elite, to perceive the new, to correct the chosen direction of movement under given historical circumstances.

Censorship is a product of a society that needs restraining principles, tools to prevent the destruction of its organism. It is a kind of example of the action of the instinct of self-preservation in a society that seeks to limit the deviations of its members. Making a selection of information on the basis of accepted in this society samples and norms, censorship issues a verdict on the degree of its compliance with the social framework established for the people living in it, and thereby predetermines the public perception of this or that fact. Thus, it participates in the formation of value orientations. But there is also a serious danger hidden in this, since the pressure of censorship can lead to the conservation of obsolete social institutions.

The action of censorship is carried out partly publicly, partly latently and depends on the state of society and its culture. Being an artificial subsystem, censorship serves to strengthen "parental" systems, but under certain conditions it is able to "autonomize" from true social needs and go into the "self-generation" mode, that is, to the search and destruction of "enemies", which inevitably begins to lead to the self-destruction of all socio-cultural organism. So, censorship, on the one hand, is able to protect culture, and on the other hand, it can weaken it, blocking the path of cultural-creative currents.

The mode of functioning of censorship is directly related to the deployment of two trends: to differentiation and integration in the space of a single and dynamic field of culture. This is due to the fact that in society there is always a desire to streamline the processes of interaction between its various cultures and subcultures. So, it is important to take into account the degree of dependence of the sociodynamics of culture on censorship, since it is with censorship that a certain order of functioning of a heterogeneous culture in society is associated.

If a "closed" society is formed, then sociality, based on the positions of a misunderstood public good, dominates, and censorship is alienated from cultural tradition, works against it and, ultimately, against society itself. If censorship normally operates in a civilized society, strictly observing the established rules and norms, and successfully satisfies its needs for the protection of fundamental human values, then both principles are harmoniously combined in it: social and cultural.

Power as a prerequisite, a condition for the emergence and development of censorship, ensures the fulfillment of its main functions:

1) the control function, which consists in the systematic tracking, evaluation, classification and selection of social information in accordance with the accepted norms for its production and circulation;

2) regulatory functions, aimed at defining criteria and establishing the procedure for the circulation of information through the preparation of recommendations, instructions, instructions, comments, prohibitions, etc.;

3) a protective function that allows keeping secret state, military and other secrets;

4) a repressive function aimed at punishing those guilty of violating the rules of censorship;

5) manipulative function, expressed in the fact that censorship, regulating the flow of information, in a certain way affects the perception of facts and decision-making;

6) a preventive function designed to prevent conflict situations;

7) a sanctioning function that ensures the passage of two types of information into the social space: primordial, unchanged, and distorted, adapted by censorship;

8) a standardizing function, which is the fixation and consolidation in the sociocultural continuum of certain samples (works of art, artistic trends and styles, scientific theories, etc.);

9) the function of stimulating public interest, which causes an increase and awakening of attention to inaccessible information on the part of the uninitiated.

In addition to the listed functions, censorship also performs a number of related ones: regulatory, communicative, translational, etc. Their vast majority (with the exception of manipulative), if they do not go into "their other", has a positive orientation. But, contrary to its nature, censorship is often used by various social actors to the detriment of society and culture.

We list some generalized characteristics of censorship as social institution in our time:

a) the scope of its activities is primarily related to social information;

b) there are special censorship institutions. These are various government bodies(ministries, departments, etc.), public organizations (foundations, associations, commissions, committees, party bodies, etc.), religious institutions (synod, administrations and councils for the supervision of literature of theological content, etc.) and a certain group officials- censors who perform the relevant functions (in some cases, their duties are transferred to editors, experts, consultants, etc.);

c) the norms and principles of its activity are set legal acts state, official instructions, statutes public organizations accepted in society criteria of morality;

d) the material means used by censorship include special equipment necessary for viewing and storing photographic, film and television materials, listening to radio broadcasts and tape recordings, reading letters, etc.

According to the correct remark of E. Durkheim, there is no institution that would not degenerate at a certain moment. In the case of censorship, this statement is true, but only in individual cases.

An analogue of censorship at the ordinary level can be considered public opinion, which is based on authority and traditions. By tabooing certain topics (and even words), it ensures that the discussion proceeds within certain limits. Of course, official censorship often diverges in its assessments from public opinion(for example, in our recent past, this concerned the work of B. C. Vysotsky). Literary and artistic criticism, under certain conditions, is also able to take on the functions of censorship. Merging into its system, it begins to perform not only the mission of a controller, regulator, creator of a standard, but also a "scammer" pointing out "harmful" works to the authorities.

The diversity of its subjects is reflected in traditional and modern censorship institutions. All of them can be considered as subjects-performers ("censors"). We can also single out one more category - "customers", that is, subjects who more or less actively support the activities of "censors", but do not directly participate in it. These can be both individuals and certain social groups and organizations that are aware of the need to protect their own interests and principles with the help of this kind of means. To do this, they involve "censors" and, as a rule, seek to substantiate their claims by subsuming legal regulators under them. Sometimes this is done post factum (as an example, it is enough to refer to the episode when the Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federation filed claims against the NTV television company in connection with the program "Dolls"). The division of subjects of censorship into "performers" and "customers" according to such criteria turns out to be relative, and sometimes some "customers" simultaneously act as "performers". In addition, the diversity of interests of various subjects inevitably leads to contradictions between them. Thus, situations are even possible when there is a contradiction between the interests of the authorities and society and the momentary needs of a particular censorship institution and its employees.

Constitutional prohibitions against censorship should be respected only in relation to the emergence of institutions of a certain type, but not to abolish censorship in principle.

Modern technologies make significant adjustments to the work of censorship. Xerox, personal computers and other technical achievements of the late 20th century led to the decentralization of the system of production and dissemination of information. As the Canadian sociologist M. McLuhan noted, an ordinary person, if desired, now turned from a consumer into a publisher. The new "screen" culture posed before the censorship questions that had no analogues in the past: this is the problem of protecting data banks of state and non-state structures from their illegal use, and the fight against "software piracy", and much more. Finding answers to them is not easy, but it is vital for the world community.

Thus, censorship has real prospects. Politics decisively affects only its specific use by certain social actors. The future belongs to flexible censorship, which operates within the framework of the rule of law and is supplemented by the voluntary participation of broad sections of society in it.

Is there censorship in Russian art? Ask any singer, director or actor - their answers are sure to be wordy and controversial. While many hear the phrase “authoritarian regime” and think of the caricature of barbed wire, barking police dogs, and artists singing the praises of the dear leader, horror literally showing through their stage make-up, there are more contradictions in the government of Vladimir Putin than such a picture allows you to see.

The paradoxical nature of the Russian state becomes especially evident if we analyze the flourishing art of this country. It is these contradictions in the system of government and their peculiar influence on the world of Russian art that help to strengthen Putin's power and, in fact, help to ensure support for the Russian president.

So is there censorship? Yes, some people will argue, but it's implicit and nobody knows how it works. Others take the opposite view, defending the idea itself. Just look, they say, how many cultural figures the Soviet Union gave us - not at all like today's young, spoiled, soft-bodied representatives of art!

If we look at the problem in more detail and in all its subtleties, then there is censorship, but it is mainly the self-censorship of artists that they use in order not to lose access to public funding or stage venues, concert halls, showrooms.

In the fall of 2016, a scandal erupted in the world of Russian art, which developed according to a predictable scenario. An exhibition of the work of American photographer Jock Sturges (Jock Sturges) caused outrage and led to outrages. A group of well-organized "patriots" calling themselves "Officers of Russia" appeared at the gallery where the exhibition was being held. As a result, one photograph was doused with urine, and the exhibition itself, which did not violate Russian laws, was quickly closed.

Fast forward a few months and now these same “patriots” are already being smashed in prime time by Dmitry Kiselev, widely known in the West as the main Russian propagandist, for their “obscene” antics.

Censorship in Russia is a game. Self-proclaimed "censors" see this as an opportunity to curry favor with some officials (and even before Putin himself) and make scandals. In turn, other, more influential "servants" of the Kremlin, without embarrassment, straighten them up and give them a dressing down. So the world of Russian art is not so much the object of a series of harsh, systematic repressions due to the main, dominant ideology, but the subject and reason for the clashes of influential people and alliances.

Context

Exhibition in Hermitage checked for extremism

The Independent 08.12.2012

Russian artists threaten to boycott Louvre exhibition over censorship

AFP 09/28/2010

The police checks after the pogrom at the exhibition in the Manezh

Radio Liberty 15.08.2015
This game fits perfectly with Putin's goals. It serves as a guarantee that Russian art will continue to flourish as a whole, providing prestige to the government and its leader. But this game inevitably creates an unpredictable, stressful environment for Russian artists and spectators, in which you need to think carefully before you “stick out”. This applies equally to the pro-Kremlin representatives of Russian art, and to those associated with conscious protest art - not to mention the mass of creative people who occupy a huge intermediate “gray zone”.

In Soviet times, the authorities set clear limits and warned artists that it was forbidden to go beyond these limits. People basically knew how to behave and could make conscious decisions about how far to go and how much to go too far. Putin's officials set the boundaries of what is permitted at random, change them as they please, and then tell you that these boundaries do not exist. And that you went crazy and invented them yourself.

Putin is not Kim Jong Un. He is not interested in managing the starving peasants and the robotic people fawning over him; he has serious ambitions on the world stage, and he wants Russia to be reckoned with in all spheres of life, including art. Therefore, he will prevent the organized persecution of art and postpone it until it is possible, taking into account other interests - including the military.

For Russian artists, this means that they are likely to be used in different ways. When Andrei Zvyagintsev's film Leviathan was released - a terrible picture reflecting on how Russian officials profit from their fellow citizens - the Russian Minister of Culture decided to demonstrate his loyalty to the authorities, accusing the director of trying to cater to western audiences. When the film was later nominated for an Oscar and did not receive this award, the same Minister of Culture immediately changed tactics, calling the director a "talented" master. At the same time, he made it clear that this award, in any case, is no longer a measure of talent, and it does not matter that this wonderful film was not appreciated.

Hypocrisy? Of course. But accusations of hypocrisy do not matter much in political system created for reasons of opportunism, for the sake of maximum benefit, and the minister of culture knows this as well as the Russian president.

In addition, one should take into account the fact that Putin himself wants to be admired by artists. The admiration of the most worthy representatives of society is politically convenient, but this is not enough. It can be explained why Putin elevated a man like Vladislav Surkov, long regarded as the Kremlin's "grey eminence", by appointing him to positions of power. The reason is that Surkov is not only a shrewd strategist and manipulator, he also built connections between the Kremlin and the art world, defending some and intimidating others, and spoke to the creative intelligentsia not in boring, bureaucratic jargon, but in their own language.

By the time Russia decided to annex Crimea in 2014, hundreds of prominent Russian artists who had signed open letter“in support of the president’s position on Ukraine and Crimea,” they did not do this out of fear for their lives. Similarly, I don't think most of them did it because they were so interested in what was going on in Ukraine. They played in this process the role they were supposed to play, consciously doing what the Kremlin wanted them to do.

It is characteristic of the policy of opportunism that it works in both directions. If everything the authorities do is just a spectacle calculated to please the public, then the political allegiances and beliefs of individuals can also be performative - a role in a government production - and can be taken up or removed from the stage at any moment. Who understands this better than the one who makes art?

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

Back in the middle of the last century, the wise Ray Bradbury wrote: "... if you don't want a person to be upset because of politics, don't give him the opportunity to see both sides of the issue. Let him see only one, and even better - none..." In fact, in this passage from his novel Fahrenheit 451, the author has described the whole purpose of censorship. What's this? Let's find out, and also consider the features of this phenomenon and its types.

Censorship - what is it?

This term was formed from the Latin word censura, which translates as "exacting judgment, criticism." Nowadays, it means a system of supervision over various kinds of information, which is carried out by the state in order to prevent the distribution of certain information on its territory.

By the way, the bodies that directly specialize in such control are also called "censorship".

History of censorship

When and where the idea to filter information first arose - history is silent. Which is quite natural, because this science is one of the first, controlled by censorship. It is known that already in ancient Greece and Rome, statesmen came to the conclusion that it was necessary to control the mood of citizens in order to prevent possible riots and keep power in their own hands.

In this regard, in almost all ancient powers, lists of so-called "dangerous" books were compiled to be destroyed. By the way, most often this category included works of art and poetry, although scientific works also got it.

Such traditions of combating unwanted knowledge were actively used in the first centuries of the new era, and after that they were successfully continued in the Middle Ages, and they have survived to our times, however, they have become more veiled.

It is worth noting that the authorities almost always have the right hand in terms of censorship - it was some kind of religious institution. In ancient times - priests, and with the advent of Christianity - popes, patriarchs and other spiritual "bosses". It was they who twisted the Holy Scriptures for the sake of political interests, imitated "signs", cursed anyone who tried to speak differently. In general, they did everything to turn the consciousness of society into plastic clay, from which you can sculpt whatever you need.

Although modern society and very advanced in intellectual and cultural development, however, censorship is still a completely successful way to control citizens, which is successfully used even in the most liberal states. Of course, this is done much more skillfully and imperceptibly than in past centuries, but the goals are still the same.

Is censorship good or bad?

For example, if every film director uncontrollably shows overly explicit sex scenes or bloody murders in his creations, it is not a fact that after watching such a spectacle, some viewers will not have a nervous breakdown or irreparable damage will not be done to their psyche.

Or, for example, if all the data about some epidemic in a settlement becomes known to its inhabitants, a panic may begin that can lead to even more terrible consequences or completely paralyze the life of the city. And most importantly, it will prevent doctors from doing their job and saving those who can still be helped.

And if you do not take it so globally, then the simplest phenomenon that censorship is fighting against is swearing. Although everyone sometimes allows himself to use foul language, however, if profanity were not officially banned, it’s even scary to imagine what modern language would look like. More precisely, the speech of its carriers.

That is, theoretically, censorship is a kind of filter designed to protect citizens from information that they are not always able to perceive correctly. This is especially important in the case of children, who are protected by censorship from the problems of adult life, giving them time to get stronger before they have to face them in full.

However, the main problem is the people who control this "filter". Indeed, much more often they use power not for good, but in order to manipulate people and use information for personal gain.

Take the same case of an epidemic in a small town. Having learned about the situation, the country's leadership sends a batch of vaccine to all hospitals in order to vaccinate all citizens for free. Upon learning of this, the city authorities disseminate data that paid vaccinations against the disease can be made in private medical offices. And information about the availability of a free vaccine is hushed up for several days, so that as many citizens as possible can buy what they were supposed to have for nothing.

Types of censorship

There are several criteria for selecting different kinds censorship. This is most often associated with the information environment in which control is carried out:

• State.
• Political.
• Economic.
• A commercial.
• Corporate.
• Ideological (spiritual).
• Moral.
• Pedagogical.
• Military (carried out during the participation of the country in armed conflicts).

Censorship is also divided into preliminary and subsequent.

The first prevents the dissemination of certain information at the stage of its occurrence. For example, pre-censorship in literature is the control by the authorities of the content of books before they are published. A similar tradition flourished during the time of Tsarist Russia.

Post-censorship is a way to prevent the dissemination of data after it has been made public. It is less effective, because in this case the information is known to the public. However, anyone who confesses to knowing it is punished.

To better understand what the features of preliminary and subsequent censorship are, it is worth recalling the history and his "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow".

In this book, the author described the sad political and social situation in which the Russian Empire was in those days. However, it was forbidden to speak openly about this, because officially everything was fine in the empire and all the inhabitants were satisfied with the reign of Catherine II (as is often shown in some cheap pseudo-historical series). Despite the possible punishment, Radishchev wrote his "Journey ...", however, he designed it in the form of travel notes about various settlements meeting between the two capitals.

In theory, preliminary censorship should have stopped the publication. But the checking official was too lazy to get a grasp of the content and missed "Journey ..." in print.

And then the subsequent censorship (punitive) came into play. Having learned about the true content of Radishchev's work, the books were banned, all copies found were destroyed, and the author himself was exiled to Siberia.

It didn't really help, because, despite the ban, the entire cultural elite secretly read "Journey ..." and made handwritten copies of it.

Ways to bypass censorship

As is clear from Radishchev's example, censorship is not omnipotent. And as long as it exists, there are dodgers who can get around it.

The most common - 2 ways:

• The use of Aesopian language. Its essence is to covertly write about exciting problems, using an allegory or even some kind of verbal code that is understandable only to the elite.
• Dissemination of information through other sources. During the times of severe literary censorship in tsarist Russia, most of the seditious works were published abroad, where the laws are more liberal. And later books were smuggled into the country and distributed. By the way, with the advent of the Internet, circumventing censorship has become much easier. After all, you can always find (or create) a site where you can share your forbidden knowledge.

I will say right away: I am for censorship. You will think that this is a paradox - they say, how can a journalist oppose freedom of speech? But freedom is different from freedom, and censorship is also different from censorship.

“It is impossible to live in society and be free from society,” said grandfather Lenin. And no one disputes his correctness. The man was wise. That, however, did not prevent him from doing contradictory acts. Sometimes tragic - that are still echoing around and, perhaps, will continue to echo for decades. But that's not what it's about.

A person must limit himself, permissiveness is unacceptable. If he does not do this himself, state or public institutions do it for him. And this is censorship in the broadest sense of the word.

It is worth saying that in determining the motives of human behavior, works of art, as well as the media, play a significant role. With the help of these two critical factors you can sometimes completely change a person’s worldview, especially an unsettled one.

Censorship exists in any state, and this is perhaps the main tool for maintaining power in general. Another thing is the extent of these restrictions and what they want to achieve with their help.

The recent presidential race in the United States clearly showed how the authorities of this "cradle of democracy" know how to manipulate the media. By all indications, explicit and implicit, thanks to a mass information campaign, Hillary Clinton should have won. The most interesting thing is that the whole world thought so, and not only ordinary citizens, but also heads of state. Therefore, the victory of Donald Trump was a shock for many. And this is not because Trump is so-and-so, it’s just that the expectations were too different.

Thus, the US authorities launched a propaganda machine with might and main and let through not only inside the country, but also outside only that information that was pleasing to the current Obama administration and everyone who stands behind this administration.

Despite this pressure, Trump won by such a landslide margin (more than 25 percent) that no one even dared to argue. And if not for censorship, then, apparently, Trump would have inflicted a crushing defeat on the Democrats in general.

Why am I talking about this, you ask? What, your problems are few? No, not a lot. Just before shouting about the authoritarianism of the Russian government and nodding at Western democracy, it is worth remembering at least this past election campaign in the United States.

Of course, we have a different mentality, different values, and different prohibitions. But I want to say this. Any state striving to preserve itself as such is simply obliged to use such a method of limiting dissent as censorship. After all, the state is always a mechanism of suppression, an apparatus of violence against citizens, protecting the peace of some from the desire for permissiveness and destroying the foundations of the system by others. Here I do not mean the extreme confrontation between the authorities and ordinary citizens - the state most often has to protect people from other people.

There will be no enforcement of laws - there will be no state. And the weakness of our state is not in the weakness of the economy, but in the optional implementation of laws. If everyone was punished for crimes, regardless of personalities and positions, there would be more respect for the state, and the treasury would burst with income. And then only the pockets of some are breaking ...

It is worth saying that in Russia there was almost always censorship, and even such great ones as Derzhavin, Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Mayakovsky, Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva, Pasternak, Brodsky and others fell under its millstones.

But here's the paradox: the tougher the censorship, the more great names and great works. It sometimes seems to me that something meaningful and truly great can only be born out of opposition. And give a man freedom - and he will soon get bored with everything.

I remember, also a great one, Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky said: "Struggle is a condition of life, life dies when the struggle ends." We will not talk about the broad and, in general, universal sense of this phrase - we will focus only on counteracting the existing foundations of representatives of literature and art and journalism.

Over the course of several centuries of censorship in Russia, hundreds of outstanding names, hundreds of great works have appeared. And after censorship almost came to naught in the 90s of the last century and until today, where are those writers, poets, artists, composers? Of course, they exist, but they no longer have their former influence on the hearts and souls of readers and viewers. Permitted mass freedom has robbed us of the greatness of the spirit.

A few days ago, the series "Mysterious Passion" about the sixties was shown on TV. Undoubtedly, this is a great cultural event, but not because famous actors play, and they play well (it is worth saying that many current series have a fairly high level of artistry and acting), but mainly because of the theme and nostalgia for those years.

The great era of the sixties is simply leaving, leaving irrevocably along with its representatives, of whom only Yevgeny Yevtushenko has survived, and even that has been too many years old. Rather, the series is a requiem for a bygone time and culture.

After the sixties and major authors, their peers, in Russia there was no longer great literature. You can, of course, name a couple of names - such as, for example, Lyudmila Ulitskaya, Denis Gutsko or Dmitry Bykov, but, unfortunately, few people know them now. And it's not because they write badly, it's just that readers and Russians in general are lost in this sudden surge of freedom. You can watch any movies, listen to any programs, read any works. Public life and public culture actually ceased to exist - an individualized consciousness came to replace it. Maybe this is good, but many norms, including moral ones, are being eroded. Therefore, Soviet censorship was, of course, a boon in this regard.

If we talk about censorship in a more familiar sense, then it exists in the person of Roskomnadzor, which is authorized to fine media outlets, restrict access to them, and revoke licenses. So, for example, propaganda of extremism and terrorism, obvious slander, attacks against the foundations of the existing system and other "offences" are punished in the most cruel way - not only by the closure of the media, but also by real prison terms for journalists.

A couple of weeks ago, for example, the well-known blogger and journalist Don Sergey Reznik was released from the colony. He spent several years in prison, and now he has been excommunicated from public journalism for several more years. I didn’t follow the specific reason for Reznik’s “landing”, however, his public attacks against many people and officials in the Rostov region, most often representatives of various levels of government, not only had no basis (it is the prerogative of the court to establish the guilt of one or another person), but were served in a clearly offensive form. What is unacceptable for a journalist and what actually broke his fate.

Alexander Tolmachev, the former editor of the Rostov newspaper "Authorized to declare", is still in prison. They say it's extortion. What I don't know, I don't know, I won't say. But the court had some grounds for making this decision! Well, I can’t believe that in our days just like that one time - and they planted a public person!

The journalist Dmitry Remizov also came under investigation several times - it seems that he is now working in regional office Rosbalt. I do not presume to judge the reality of the reasons for the persecution, since the versions of law enforcement officers and the journalist are different.

In general, the majority of journalists, especially those who work in the municipal media, of course, have well-developed self-censorship. If, of course, to dig, a talented journalist can always find nasty things that he can not only write about, but also greatly inflate them to incredible sizes. But why? Here, the newspapermen are not so much afraid for their own fate as they proceed from the position of expediency: in order for power to be effective, it must be maintained, not shaken. And if a person who is worried about the fate of a village, city, district, region, country is in power, journalists are simply obliged to give him all possible support. Well, if a rogue, then the journalists will not give up!

So, there must be censorship on the part of the state, which protects its foundations from destruction, and self-censorship. After all, if you give yourself free rein, before that you can agree! By the way, someone is fully aware of the limits of permissibility and sometimes very skillfully balances, which is why not only achieves his goals, but also gives rise to a high-quality information product. Others go ahead and often find themselves removed not only from the profession, but also from society.

But there is another type of censorship - religious. Moreover, it is individualistic-religious. This is the most terrible censorship, because not only condemnation, but also the degree of punishment depends on the interpretation here.

Some time ago, a dispute broke out over the next film by Alexei Uchitel "Matilda". The film itself had not yet been released, even the director had not edited it, but already a flurry of criticism fell upon Matilda.

The film is based on the story of the relationship between Nicholas II and Matilda Kshesinskaya. The fact that Tsarevich Nicholas fell in love with a ballerina in 1892-1894 is not disputed by anyone, and relations continued only until the engagement of the future emperor with Alice of Hesse (future Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna). How the director interpreted these relationships, we don’t really know - we can only guess from the trailer. But there has already been an extensive campaign against the film itself. Before the deputy Natalya Poklonskaya made a request to the Prosecutor General's Office regarding the verification of a film that had not yet been released (!) On the screens.

The reason is an insult to the feelings of believers. The first insult is that Nicholas, who was canonized not so long ago for martyrdom, should not be shown in such an unattractive light. And the second reason is that the director gave the role of the Russian saint to the German actor Lars Eidinger, who recently “lit up” in a pornographic film.

In this regard, Protodeacon Andrei Kuraev spoke wisely, commenting on the requests of some Orthodox activists to ban the film "Matilda". According to him, the main problem is that the search for a reason for personal insult has already formed a trend.

“This fashion – to look for a reason for one’s insult – already borders on psychiatric insanity,” the archdeacon complains. - When there is an installation, they say, let's find something to be offended by, then the bullet will find a hole. I cannot imagine what would have happened to the apostles of Christ if they had walked around the Roman Empire with such a mood. They would never leave court hearings, and even there they would have time to be offended by the sight of naked statues.

Kuraev admits that someone may have actually been offended by the film "Matilda", but even in this case, they have a simple way out: do not watch this film and pray.

“The most important thing is not to decide for other people that someone else should be insulted in the same way as I am,” Andrey Kuraev explains. “And then this feeling can be poured into a prayer, and not into a police lawsuit.”

This is precisely the main danger of this kind of censorship - to decide for other people.

Recently I watched a rather talented film by our fellow countryman Kirill Serebrennikov from Rostov, who now lives in Moscow and manages the former theater named after. N.V. Gogol, and now - the Gogol Center. This is the film The Apprentice. In May, he was even awarded one of the prizes at the Cannes Film Festival.

As for me, the picture is so talented, just as Russophobic, and also anti-Orthodox. It would be just right for her to be offended. Just, apparently, few people watched it here in Russia. But it's not that. The main thing in the film is the image of the hero, which shows the danger of religious fanaticism.

A high school student named Benjamin became intoxicated with the Word of the Bible and rejected his family, teachers, and classmates. In the story, a teenager becomes a religious fanatic and comes into conflict with a biology teacher at his school.

And the interpretation of the Word of God leads the teenager to the fact that he is already going to kill, on behalf of the Lord he decides who will live and who will die - for His glory.

This is the most terrible kind of censorship - the censorship of life. And religious fanaticism, be it Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or otherwise, today comes to the surface and begins to decide the fate of entire nations.

Today, extremists of all extremes are killing what they themselves, in their conviction, serve, betraying the original vocation of religious texts. They take upon themselves the responsibility to speak for God...

Igor Severny, "Week of our region"

____________________
Found an error or typo in the text above? Highlight the misspelled word or phrase and press Shift+Enter or .

Thank you very much for your help! We will fix this soon.

Is censorship necessary? modern Russia, pros, cons?

Censorship was, is and will always be and in all states.

It exists in the so-called democratic states, which are proud that they allegedly do not have it.

But censorship must be carried out in moderation.

Not against dissent, but against propaganda of depravity, cruelty, fascism, fanaticism and all kinds of discrimination on all grounds.

In Russia, for example, they say that there is no freedom of speech in Ukraine.

They show that Russian journalists are simply not allowed to cross the border, and that is the solution to all problems.

In my opinion, things are happening in Ukraine right now that those who create them would like to hide.

In such a situation - mutual accusations - a natural thing, and only time will reveal the truth.

Any censorship is harmful, since any prohibition arouses interest in the forbidden topic. Everything is allowed

which is not prohibited by law. In our country, censorship concerns 4 topics -

1 One-sided coverage of events in Ukraine

states

4 Presenting all the activities of the extra-parliamentary opposition only in a negative light.

Good day! It is obvious that there is practically no censorship. What's on TV, what's on the Internet. In the second case, everything is running to the point of impossibility. Scary for the next generation of kids! As one of my acquaintances said: Stalin is not on themquot ;. Oh, save Mother Russia!

Well, the concept of censorship everyone understands in their own way. For example, I also act as a censor for my children - there are cartoons or movies that I forbid them to watch, and often my opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the government. So, for example, I considered it acceptable to watch the Percy Jackson film for my children (9 and 10 years old), despite the fact that the age limit for this film is 12+, but I forbid the inclusion of the cartoon Masha and the Bear (which is new) for a kid who is a little over 2 years. Why? Yes, I just don’t like this cartoon, and I think that it shows a negative behavioral model. So is our government. Instead of closing the TV channels that have the most nonsense and violence (pepper, NTV, TNT, Ren-TV), they preferred to limit themselves to 16+, 18+ and so on. So where is the censorship?

Each person puts his own meaning into the concept of censorshipquot ;. For example, for me there is nothing shameful to be photographed naked, and for some women it is very embarrassing to appear in front of a man without a veil.

If you are interested in my subjective opinion, then I agree: freedom of speech in Russia is not enough, I would like more. But the nonsense about the closure of torrent trackers and criminal prosecution for the premature disclosure of answers to USE questions would be less.

Censorship of modern Russia is sometimes simply necessary. . .

That censorship - which would preserve, already almost vanishing, already almost ghostly, already almost illusory and extremely vague concepts and ideas about elementary morality - ethical standards and moral values. . .

For now. . .

For now Our society. . .